halofanonfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Administrative Re-evaluation
As some of you may remember from my proposal a couple months back, and as many of you have agreed with me on, our administration is in serious need of cleaning house. Having put in my two cents, and taking into consideration your feedback, I'm going to lay out the procedure for this re-evaluation system. Now all that's left to do is for you to vote on it, and if necessary, work out any last-minute kinks. #The re-evaluation will take place every 20 months, on the first day of the month that it takes place. #Every user presently in service to Halo Fanon's administration will be placed under this re-evaluation. #Administrators should be voted off only if they are evidently inactive, or are active and do little to no administrative duties. Incidents involving misconduct on administrators' parts should be filed as Requests for De-administration. #An administrator with a majority vote in being removed from the administration will be permitted to make an appeal, addressing points made against him or her by the community without arguing subjectively. #If an administrator with a majority opposing vote makes an appeal, users are permitted to address points made in the appeal, again without arguing subjectively. As per wiki policy, personal attacks will not be tolerated. #To make the procedure as coherent as possible, there will not be a comments section for any administrative re-evaluation. Personal or individual discussions should be carried out on user talk pages to prevent unnecessary flooding of comments on the re-evaluation page. Equal to the expectation that an administrator under scrutiny is placed under, personal attacks will likewise not be tolerated. #Users may change their vote at any time before the re-evaluation closes. #The bureaucrat or bureaucrats currently in service to Halo Fanon must keep or remove administrators according to the majority vote in each re-evaluation. If there are any additional rules you think should be present, please let me know in the comments section below. Support (17/4) # As per proposal. # I feel that in a larger community this would be a very hard proposition to manage. However, I trust both the admins and the community itself enough to think that this can be implemented for the betterment of the wiki. # This seems well thought out and clearly written, and I see nothing wrong with greater accountability for the administration and more user say. # Better than complacently letting things spiral out of control. Good to have a checking system in place. # I concur with everyone else.--Minuteman 2492 (talk) 23:04, October 21, 2013 (UTC) # This is a good idea. The admins need to have restrictions as well as the rest of us.--IndyRevolution (talk) 23:15, October 21, 2013 (UTC) # While I personally feel an RFDA is a perfectly reasonable way to de-administrate for inactivity, I can see this as a potentially effective solution to the slump of performance from administrators - and as such, has my vote. # As per above. --Lieutenant Davis # With the expectation that long-standing voting regulations will be maintained throughout any evaluation, I consider this proposal plausible. Auguststorm1945 (Talk) 23:51, October 21, 2013 (UTC) # # Seems like a neato plan. # Aye. That Damn Sniper 00:54, October 22, 2013 (UTC) # Maybe we should do 12 months instead. # As long as personal conflicts don't interfere, I don't see why not. # Sounds great, this has my full support. # So it shall be. --Am I a Lion, or a Lamb? Or a Boy? Saint o The Lost Books 01:04, October 23, 2013 (UTC) # Don't know if my vote counts for anything since I've been inactive so long myself, but for what it's worth, I support this. Oppose (0/0) Comments